Subject: Re: Dead software (was: A draft business plan for free software LISP vendors)
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Date: 1999/03/10
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <3130013362309596@naggum.no>
* Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
| The inalienable right to property... That means, do not bother
| responding to Erik unless you are ready to get an earful from a tireless
| poster who will not rest until everyone respects the ludicrous
| libertarian credo of inalienable property rights.
it doesn't mean that at all, of course, but I'm actually happy we know
that your brain short-circuits whenever you have to respect ownership.
also, I'm always curious about one thing: when people attack this line,
they _always_ forget half of it: you forget "the fruits of one's labor",
while others forget "property". the fruits of one's labor argument is
not something you hear from libertarian quarters. it might be taken to
be purebred communism by the same kind of morons who take the other line
for libertarian, but just with a different kind of bad childhood. it's
mighty fun to watch people latch onto only one of these -- it offers very
valuable insight into how people can't read stuff that doesn't already
match their _very_ prejudicious, one-dimensional concepts.
if you look very carefully, 90% of my articles contain traps for morons,
stuff that only deranged or retarded people latch onto and get upset
about, and I gotta admit that I get a kick out of learning such things.
the best way to make somebody tell you his secrets is to offend those
secrets. most people aren't smart enough to shut up at that point.
| Yah, well, most people on the planet are able to distinguish between
| their liver, and a peice of software.
sure, but I'm adressing the rest, which are smart enough to "get"
analogies and not get hung up in particulars.
thank you for your interjection, Craigh. go play on the highway, now.
#:Erik